06/29/2010

Judge: There's a word for witnesses like Rezko

One big question hanging over the trial of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich has been whether his convicted fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, would appear at these proceedings to testify against his old friend. Rezko, now imprisoned at a federal facility in Wisconsin, has been cooperating with government agents since shortly after his 2008 conviction.

It’s still not certain whether Rezko will testify, but at a hearing before testimony resumed today, U.S. District Judge James Zagel strongly suggested that Rezko would make a lousy government witness.

Zagel said there was a word to describe witnesses like Rezko who damage whatever side calls them to testify. That, said Zagel, “generally explains why they’re not called.” Zagel refrained from actually saying what the word was, leaving the suggestion it was less than polite.

The context is this: When former chief of staff John Harris finally exits the stand later today, prosecutors will then begin questioning Tom Balanoff, Illinois head of the Service Employees International Union.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Reid Schar said a wiretap would be played when Balanoff was on the stand in which the union leader asks Blagojevich whether he is concerned about the then-ongoing federal criminal investigation into his administration. Schar said Blagojevich on the tape said he was not concerned and as a reason references a letter that Rezko wrote from jail during his criminal trial to the judge in his case, Amy St. Eve. It claimed that government agents were trying to pressure Rezko to make up stories to incriminate Blagojevich and others.

Schar said that Rezko has since recanted the letter and provided “a certain amount of information that incriminates Blagojevich.”

All of this talk occurred outside the earshot of jurors, but defense lawyers would like the jury to hear about the Rezko letter. Zagel said he would wait until after Balanoff takes the stand to rule whether the letter can be brought up.

--Bob Secter

Posted at 10:41:57 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I conclude that you are merely a tool of the media and p.r. apparatus, especially if you had to ask THREE TIMES. If you can't get it through your head, the judge said that he didn't have to say it. It is OF NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. The judge realized that, you don't seem to have the mental capacity to figure that out.

Jack, do you know what word describes witnesses like Rezko? It is the topic of this blog post. Read the headline: "Judge: There's a word for witnesses like Rezko." What is the word? Do you know? I am not asking about its legal significance. I'm asking about the word. Nobody knows the word. The judge never should have brought it up unless he was going to reveal the word.

Although it would be nice to know what the judge was referring to, it is not important to me as a casual observer of this trial. I'm sure the people actually involved (prosecutors and defense lawyers) all know, and they are the ones who count.

But I do agree that the author should have made it a little more clear as to what the judge was implying.